BBC James Holland - Battle of Britain

[winny]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Yes, you're quite right in all the above except maybe the tactics and the 109 bit.
If you re-read my first post, it says 'the ability to undertake a task and organise available resources to the best effect', which encompasses all of your points.
Tactics-wise, the RAF initially utilised tight 'Vic' formations as opposed to the German's 'schwarm', which led to a lot of early RAF losses when 'bounced'. They also had guns harmonised at an ineffective distance. They soon learned to alter both.
Whether the 109 was a better fighter? Well Tom Neil, who has been quoted, was a Hurricane pilot during the battle, and presumably was comparing the 109 to the Hurri, but this wasn't made clear in the programme.
Sure, the 109 had fuel injection and cannon, and the machine guns (not the cannon) carried 55 seconds of ammo, but there were only two of them. This is the same rate of fire as the 8 Brownings on the British planes.
It's well documented that the Hurri could out-turn the 109, and the Spit was more agile and could also out-turn it.
So the superiority of any of these fighters depends entirely on which yardstick you measure them by.
Certainly plenty of 109's were shot down by Hurricanes, so......

I know, I didn't mean for my post to read like it did. I should have said on both sides when I mentioned tactics, pilots etc.. I re read your post and you did say it wasn't about about planes and pilots. I'm just saying don't dismiss the other factors in order to make your point (which was already well put).

It's hard comparing Spitfires and 109's. One was at it's peak in 1940-1 the other in 1942-3.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by winny

I know, I didn't mean for my post to read like it did. I should have said on both sides when I mentioned tactics, pilots etc.. I re read your post and you did say it wasn't about about planes and pilots. I'm just saying don't dismiss the other factors in order to make your point (which was already well put).

It's hard comparing Spitfires and 109's. One was at it's peak in 1940-1 the other in 1942-3.

Yeah you're right, I should've said 'wasn't simply about etc'. Of course these are relevant, but they are 'available resources', which I thought I'd covered.
Bad sentence structure!! I've amended it accordingly. Thanks.
You're also correct about the comparisons, although in 42-43, the Spits had the 190's to contend with.
A Mate of mine has a copy of an actual signed combat report of Johnnie Johnson's. He shot at a 190 and damaged it, it dived away and he couldn't stay with it in a MkIXe. He managed to get in a last shot just before the 190 got out of range and brought him down.
By this time, I'd say a 109 in the same situation would've been 'easy meat'.
Having said that, Pete Brothers' favourite Spit was the Griffon Engined MkXIV, which probably would have stayed with the 190. Lots of differences between different marks of all these A/C.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Yeah you're right, I should've said 'wasn't simply about etc'. Of course these are relevant, but they are 'available resources', which I thought I'd covered.
Bad sentence structure!!
You're also correct about the comparisons, although in 42-43, the Spits had the 190's to contend with.
A Mate of mine has a copy of an actual signed combat report of Johnnie Johnson's. He shot at a 190 and damaged it, it dived away and he couldn't stay with it in a MkIXe. He managed to get in a last shot just before the 190 got out of range and brought him down.
By this time, I'd say a 109 in the same situation would've been 'easy meat'.
Having said that, Pete Brothers' favourite Spit was the Griffon Engined MkXIV, which probably would have stayed with the 190. Lots of differences between different marks of all these A/C.

I agree with you that in it's simplest form it was a battle of supply and demand and leadership, but then most are! As for the 109 vs Spit thing. I love the whole debate, it's like post match analysis and is a good way to spend some time (as long as it's civil) and like you said it ebbed and flowed as WW2 progressed and it kept it interesting right up till the end.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by winny

As for the 109 vs Spit thing. I love the whole debate, it's like post match analysis and is a good way to spend some time (as long as it's civil) and like you said it ebbed and flowed as WW2 progressed and it kept it interesting right up till the end.

I remember seeing an interview with Gerald 'Stapme' Stapleton, who said to a captured Luftwaffe pilot 'Do you know why the Spitfire is a better fighter than a 109? It's because any fool can fly a Spitfire, but it takes a lot of skill and training to fly a 109.'

Can't argue with that!

[Blackdog_kt]

Very interesting topic. You guys got me thinking and i think i can offer another perspective that deals with some distinctions in the comparison.

First of all, saying that X is the better fighter is a bit too vague. For example, a more accurate question would be "better in what and under what circumstances"?

Comparing only technical data is too narrow a point of view, adding tactical application of the airframe is a bit better (as the relative performance dictates the optimal fighting style) but then again it's useful for comparing aircraft on the basis of a 1 on 1 duel. This rarely happens in actual combat.

Things like pilot training in the proper application of the aicraft, as well as peripheral factors that influence combat can play a big role in the final outcome.

I do think the 109 was the better fighter when speaking from a purely technical point of view, plus it had some of the most experienced pilots at the time flying it. The reasons it couldn't turn the tide are the host of peripheral factors that influenced the way its sorties were flown and most of all, the inter-dependent dynamics between different types of friendly and hostile aircraft.
What i mean by this is something that many virtual pilots, especially those who fly the 190, can understand. A fighter is not strictly a boom and zoomer or a turn and burner, it depends on the opposition. The same fighter is a boom and zoomer when used against something like an I-16, but it's a turn and burner when used against something like a P-51. If the target is slower or turns better you BnZ, if he's faster and flies higher you rely on angles and try to drag him lower. In this sense the early 109s, while not a dog of an airplane, were mostly BnZ fighters for most of the early part of the war, as they usually faced opposition that was slower but had a tighter turning radius.

The thing is, a boom and zoom fighter (or more accurately, the BnZ application of it) which is superior on freijagd missions confines you to a certain fighting style: observing, controlling the engagement and swooping in for the kill when the time is right. You can do almost none of that when you're strapped to a formation of bombers as close escort. This is why a lot of the Russian fighters were turn and burners, they wanted them to stay glued to the bombers and gain angles fast enough to shoot down or drive away the attackers, not rack up the absolute maximum kill to death ratio.
The reason boom and zoom fighters worked well for the US as escorts during the latter years is that the German interceptors were similar in nature but inferior in performance at the altitudes the bombers operated. Well, the 109 did well up high, but it lacked the armament to consistently and efficiently be used as pure bomber hunter. The 190s were well armed and durable but lacked the performance to evade the escorts and that goes double so for twin engined heavy fighters like the 110. It's no wonder that most of the times the 109s were sent to tackle the escort while the 190s and 110s set to work on the bombers.

Back on the topic of BoB, let's combine the 109s boom and zoom nature when compared to the Hurricane and Spitfire, with the 109's limited endurance. It becomes quite clear that the 109, despite being the better fighter on a one-on-one basis, was all too often forced to fight in a way that, while not entirely favoring the opponent (the still lightweight E model compared to later 109s, while it was no Spitfire, could hold its own in a turning contest, it just wasn't the optimal thing to do), was effectively sapping it of its most important attribute in the relative match-up: the ability to control the engagement and decide when to strike.

You can't afford taking your time waiting for the best moment when your bombers are under attack or you know you have 5 minutes worth of fuel remaining in the combat zone, you just get in the fray right there and now.

Finally, the irony of it all, the armaments. Absolute optimal conditions can almost never be observed in actual air combat and aircraft design tends to account for that.
When you need to score hits on a fighter, you want to maximize the amount of rounds you can launch at the target. Generally speaking, fighters of the time were relatively lightweight and didn't take a tremendous amount of punishment to bring down, so design tended to favor batteries of fast firing machine guns as the prime anti-fighter weapon: more rounds per minute, more ammunition, easier to account for wasted ammo when leading a wildly maneuvering target by tracer or executing a tracking shot.
On the other hand when the intended target is a bomber, you want to maximize the amount of destructive power per projectile in order to limit the amount of time your fighter will spend within the bomber's defensive fire arc and range. The bomber doesn't maneuver that hard, it's easier to score hits on it, so all we care about is making each hit count the most. We don't care if during the firing pass the cannon spits half the amount of rounds a machine gun can, because we get a higher hit percentage due to the target's sluggishness and our rounds explode. Explosions on aircraft loaded with fuel and bombs really are a big deal after all. Hence, the preference of cannons as anti-bomber armaments.

Well, in the actual battle things were ironically reversed.The 109 went on to escort bombers and fend off some of the most nimble fighters of the time while armed with slow firing cannons that held a magazine of just 60 rounds. On the other hand, the RAF fighters intercepted bombers day in and day out while armed with a more or less strictly anti-fighter weapon system. One that due to its lightweight projectiles required a very strict observance of concentrating hits in one point to have any effect, something that meant the pilot had to spent more time within the bomber's defensive fire to have any chance of doing meaninfgul damage.

I bet that it wasn't only Galland who wanted a "squadron of Spitfires" to win the battle, but many British airmen would have also liked to have a squadron of 109s to use in bomber busting

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I bet that it wasn't only Galland who wanted a "squadron of Spitfires" to win the battle, but many British airmen would have also liked to have a squadron of 109s to use in bomber busting

Actually you have to put it in the correct context...............

"Adolf Galland rated the Spitfire so highly he told Goering 'Give me a squadron of Spitfires'." - Here's a quote from his book The First And The Last:

"The theme of fighter protection was chewed over again and again. Goering clearly represented the point of view of the bombers and demanded close and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures. I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable. He rejected my objection. We received many more harsh words. Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame. Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."

[SEE]

I saw an interview with Adolph Galland and was fascinated to hear his accounts as a combat pilot. He described an encounter with what he thought was a flight of FW109s. They were in fact a new Soviet Fighter - later identified as LA5's. He was the only German pilot in his flightgroup to survive that encounter! He had the utmost respect for the later Russian planes and their pilots. I found his opinions concerning the various allied/Axis ac very balanced and informative.

[Splitter]

Almost an apples and oranges debate, sort of like the P-51 vs. Spitfire.

The 109 in the BoB was flying at the edge of its' range. The Spitfire had the advantage of engaging at short range (to base) and fighting over friendly territory. As someone else pointed out, the 109's also had to protect bombers which limited their attack.

Add to those things the fact that the British pilots were often vectored to the enemy formations. They "knew" where the enemy was and which way they were going, the Germans were effectively flying blind in comparison.

Me? I would rather be flying a 109 with all other things being equal. Being a little faster and able to dive away always leaves a way oout of the fight. But...not all things were equal in the BoB.

Now what I have never understood was the choice of armament. The British MG's threw out a lot of rounds but had little "punch". The German planes had equally inefficient MG's plus cannons that fired slowly and with limited capacity.

The .50 cal was the best compromise among the available armaments. It's rate of fire was almost comparable to the .303 and it hit a LOT harder. While it didn't hit as hard as a 20mm cannon by any means, it's rate of fire, range, and capacity made up for the lack of punch. In short, the .50 cal hit hard enough to take down bombers and fired fast enough to take down fighters.

Why the Brits and Germans refused to go to 12.7-13mm machines guns is beyond me. I could see cannons being used against bombers, but they make little sense against fighters compared to alternatives. Even their rifle caliber machine guns really didn't hit hard enough even for fighters.

Splitter

[Thunderbolt56]

Originally Posted by Schepel

It says: not available in your area. Would love to see it.

Same.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Actually you have to put it in the correct context...............

"Adolf Galland rated the Spitfire so highly he told Goering 'Give me a squadron of Spitfires'." - Here's a quote from his book The First And The Last:

"The theme of fighter protection was chewed over again and again. Goering clearly represented the point of view of the bombers and demanded close and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures. I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable. He rejected my objection. We received many more harsh words. Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame. Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."

Well, no disagreements there. That's pretty much what i meant in my previous post, maybe i didn't say it clear enough

Originally Posted by Splitter

Almost an apples and oranges debate, sort of like the P-51 vs. Spitfire.

The 109 in the BoB was flying at the edge of its' range. The Spitfire had the advantage of engaging at short range (to base) and fighting over friendly territory. As someone else pointed out, the 109's also had to protect bombers which limited their attack.

Add to those things the fact that the British pilots were often vectored to the enemy formations. They "knew" where the enemy was and which way they were going, the Germans were effectively flying blind in comparison.

Me? I would rather be flying a 109 with all other things being equal. Being a little faster and able to dive away always leaves a way oout of the fight. But...not all things were equal in the BoB.

Now what I have never understood was the choice of armament. The British MG's threw out a lot of rounds but had little "punch". The German planes had equally inefficient MG's plus cannons that fired slowly and with limited capacity.

The .50 cal was the best compromise among the available armaments. It's rate of fire was almost comparable to the .303 and it hit a LOT harder. While it didn't hit as hard as a 20mm cannon by any means, it's rate of fire, range, and capacity made up for the lack of punch. In short, the .50 cal hit hard enough to take down bombers and fired fast enough to take down fighters.

Why the Brits and Germans refused to go to 12.7-13mm machines guns is beyond me. I could see cannons being used against bombers, but they make little sense against fighters compared to alternatives. Even their rifle caliber machine guns really didn't hit hard enough even for fighters.

Splitter

That's also accurate, but the widespread prevalence of the .50 came a bit later. Not too late, as by Pearl Harbor a lot if not most of the US designs carried the .50, but it was not unusual to see US warbirds with .30s or a mix of .30s and .50s during the early months. I think part of the whole deal was also weight concerns.

In the end the US designers chose a well balanced compromise and stuck with it, as it was found to be good enough and provided a common standard across all platforms (ease of maintaining and training personnel to service a single weapon type,etc), one could say to the point of complacency as evidenced by the prevalence of .50s even until Korea (Sabres with six .50s against Migs carrying 23mm and 37mm cannons with a high rate of fire, maybe the only widespread user of cannons on the US side was the Corsair).
In the UK the situation was balanced with the introduction of the Hispano and in Germany with the Mg151, both of them weapons with a fast enough rate of fire for a cannon of the time and good balistic characteristics. Clearly, much superior in terms of ammunition quantity and ease of aiming to the MGFF the 109s used during BoB.